Judge speaks his mind, outrage ensues.

0byme75341jo28

During an interview on Monday recently retired Judge Barry White said some rapes are ‘less violent’ than others, and also commented on one case, although he did not name the victims, saying "the victim seemed to have a considerable interest in compensation for the offence".

What is honestly wrong with what he said? His assertion that some rapes are 'less violent' than others is an irrefutable fact, there are always more or less violent attacks when it comes to violent crimes, it's undeniable. His comments on the woman desperately seeking compensation is simply what he believed after hearing the case, why is he being chastised for speaking his mind?

I don't get it.

wazky

Maximiliano Shaggy Watermelon wrote: »

Judge Barry White said "Give me all your love my fine ass piece of dark chocolate"

He should have said that instead.

Dravokivich

A judge is seen as an authority of the Law, while the Law is supposed to treat and protect all fairly. The opinions a lot of Irish judges display in their comments tend not to reflect that.

suicide_circus

The Prince of Cumberland! that is a step on which I must fall down, or else o'erleap, for in my way it lies.

Stars, hide your fires, Let not light see my black and deep desires....

The victim in the case he's referring to is from a country where compensation is often given to the victims of crimes, by the criminal. It's appropriate for her to feel that she has not received justice until she's been compensated within the cultural context of her country of origin.

The problem with his wording is that she sounds like she sees it as a moneyspinner, even though her rapist was CONVICTED of the crime. She's undoubtedly a victim of crime, and he should not be passing comments on what he perceives as her greediness.

Some rapes are more violent than others, particularly those where force, threats, injury and multiple assaults are present. It doesn't mean that some victims are a little bit raped, and some are very raped or that ALL rape isn't violence, even if no injury other than the rape occurs.

The problem is that some quarters will leap on anyone saying this and take it to mean that some rapists are only a little bit rapey and some are very rapey, or that victims shouldn't be that upset if they weren't stabbed or beaten too. It can be interpreted as minimising the vast majority of rapes, which is rape committed without additional violence by a person known to the victim. All rape is devastating.

hatrickpatrick

It's a very taboo thing to talk about, basically. But it should be pretty obvious that a case involving someone being threatened with a knife or even just being forced to have sex against their will, and a case involving two minors having consensual sex or two drunk people who can't remember what they did for example are not the same thing.
The fact that it's impossible to have a public discussion about that without the person who dares to question the current paradigm being viciously attacked and silenced is pretty pathetic.

MadYaker

I honestly don't get why some people are so outraged, he said some rapes are less violent than others, surely that's a fact?

kylith

MadYaker wrote: »

I honestly don't get why some people are so outraged, he said some rapes are less violent than others, surely that's a fact?

It is, but it's like saying that some murders are less violent that other murders. Sure it's true, poisoning is less violent than dismembering, but the end result is the same - you're just as dead. HOWEVER, some people see the phrase 'some rapes are less violent than others' as meaning that they are less traumatic to the victim, which is nonsense. Regardless of whether you are 'just' held down or whether you get 3 kinds of sh!te beaten out of you first you are still just as raped.

anncoates

I always find that when somebody 'speaks their mind', it's usually intemperate dribble that ensues.

solomafioso

anncoates wrote: »

I always find that when somebody 'speaks their mind', it's usually intemperate dribble that ensues.

Drivel?

Sauve

anncoates wrote: »

I always find that when somebody 'speaks their mind', it's usually intemperate dribble that ensues.

Ah that's only when you're a doddery aul fella

Guy:Incognito

Candie wrote: »

The victim in the case he's referring to is from a country where compensation is often given to the victims of crimes, by the criminal. It's appropriate for her to feel that she has not received justice until she's been compensated within the cultural context of her country of origin.

The problem with his wording is that she sounds like she sees it as a moneyspinner, even though her rapist was CONVICTED of the crime. She's undoubtedly a victim of crime, and he should not be passing comments on what he perceives as her greediness.

Some rapes are more violent than others, particularly those where force, threats, injury and multiple assaults are present. It doesn't mean that some victims are a little bit raped, and some are very raped or that ALL rape isn't violence, even if no injury other than the rape occurs.

The problem is that some quarters will leap on anyone saying this and take it to mean that some rapists are only a little bit rapey and some are very rapey, or that victims shouldn't be that upset if they weren't stabbed or beaten too. It can be interpreted as minimising the vast majority of rapes, which is rape committed without additional violence by a person known to the victim. All rape is devastating.

Did she just spring it on the judge and lawyers in court that she was expecting compensation? I'd have assumed that's something that would have come up early in discussions with lawyers and told that that's not how the law works here, no?

anncoates

solomafioso wrote: »

Drivel?

I actually did mean dribble - in a verbal incontinence sense - but I just look like a retard now

floggg

Maximiliano Shaggy Watermelon wrote: »

During an interview on Monday recently retired Judge Barry White said some rapes are ‘less violent’ than others, and also commented on one case, although he did not name the victims, saying "the victim seemed to have a considerable interest in compensation for the offence".

What is honestly wrong with what he said? His assertion that some rapes are 'less violent' than others is an irrefutable fact, there are always more or less violent attacks when it comes to violent crimes, it's undeniable. His comments on the woman desperately seeking compensation is simply what he believed after hearing the case, why is he being chastised for speaking his mind?

I don't get it.

Some murders are more violent than others. Doesn't really make might difference - it's still murder which ever way you do it.

The problem with comments like that is that it gives rise to the impression that there are "degrees" of rape. The implication seems to be that a less violent rape is somehow less deplorable or something.

Why else make the statement - I've never heard a judge or anybody else make the equivalent statement re murder.

There are no such degrees of rape, and the crime is the same regardless of whether it's psychological coercion or violent force used.

jank

Candie wrote: »

The victim in the case he's referring to is from a country where compensation is often given to the victims of crimes, by the criminal. It's appropriate for her to feel that she has not received justice until she's been compensated within the cultural context of her country of origin.

The problem with his wording is that she sounds like she sees it as a moneyspinner, even though her rapist was CONVICTED of the crime. She's undoubtedly a victim of crime, and he should not be passing comments on what he perceives as her greediness.

Some rapes are more violent than others, particularly those where force, threats, injury and multiple assaults are present. It doesn't mean that some victims are a little bit raped, and some are very raped or that ALL rape isn't violence, even if no injury other than the rape occurs.

The problem is that some quarters will leap on anyone saying this and take it to mean that some rapists are only a little bit rapey and some are very rapey, or that victims shouldn't be that upset if they weren't stabbed or beaten too. It can be interpreted as minimising the vast majority of rapes, which is rape committed without additional violence by a person known to the victim. All rape is devastating.

I don't agree. This is Ireland, so where the victim is from should have no bearing on the result. Swap compensation for any of corporal punishment, castration, capital punishment which may also be acceptable pieces of justice in other countries. Irish law does not recognise these.


In the issue itself, I found nothing wrong with the judges comments but if one speaks their mind and someone is offended then that is apparently news worthy. It's all bull tbh. My rights don't end where your feelings begin.

kylith

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Did she just spring it on the judge and lawyers in court that she was expecting compensation? I'd have assumed that's something that would have come up early in discussions with lawyers and told that that's not how the law works here, no?

Unfortunately that does seem to be how the law is going in this country. There have been two cases recently where the attacker has avoided jail time by paying compensation.

Chocolate Lions

floggg wrote: »

Some murders are more violent than others. Doesn't really make might difference - it's still murder which ever way you do it.

Poor analogy. A better one would be you can get hit by a car going 10mph or going 60.

floggg wrote: »

The problem with comments like that is that it gives rise to the impression that there are "degrees" of rape. The implication seems to be that a less violent rape is somehow less deplorable or something.

No, that's you interpreting something that wasn't said. The problem is with you here, leaping to what wasn't said. The judge spoke precisely enough.

floggg wrote: »

Why else make the statement - I've never heard a judge or anybody else make the equivalent statement re murder.

There are no such degrees of rape, and the crime is the same regardless of whether it's psychological coercion or violent force used.

Psychological coercion ie. persuading someone to have sex. Jesus, have you ever been in a relationship? You're comparing that to someone breaking a girls jaw and ruining her downstairs. What an obscene thing to say.

It's not healthy to frame statements purposefully incorrectly, and leaping to absolutes like murder is doesn't help either. Rape is assault. Someone can get punched around a bit, or have bones broken, lose an eye etc. To say there is no gradient to an assault is irrational. It's always wrong, but hyperbole doesn't serve any good.

kylith

Chocolate Lions wrote: »

Psychological coercion ie. persuading someone to have sex. Jesus, have you ever been in a relationship? You're comparing that to someone breaking a girls jaw and ruining her downstairs. What an obscene thing to say.

More 'threats and blackmail' than 'ah, go on, please' in reality.

You honestly sound like you haven't got a clue. Being raped is a massive trauma, regardless of how it happens.

Chocolate Lions

kylith wrote: »

More 'threats and blackmail' than 'ah, go on, please' in reality.

You honestly sound like you haven't got a clue. Being raped is a massive trauma, regardless of how it happens.

That's not in contention. The degree of violence involved is what the judge commented on. What's difficult about that.

kylith

Chocolate Lions wrote: »

That's not in contention. The degree of violence involved is what the judge commented on. What's difficult about that.

The thing about your 'run over' analogy is that you can be bruised at 10mph or dead at 60mph, whereas if you get raped it doesn't matter if he beats you or not, you're still raped - the outcome is the same regardless of the amount of force used. You can't say someone was 'only a bit raped' because they weren't beaten to a pulp. Yes, there are levels of violence, but it doesn't detract from the trauma of the experience.

RDM_83 again

kylith wrote: »

More 'threats and blackmail' than 'ah, go on, please' in reality.

You honestly sound like you haven't got a clue. Being raped is a massive trauma, regardless of how it happens.

How can the swedes who are constantly held up as being the pinnacle of social enlightenment have "degrees" of rape in their legal system?

Chocolate Lions

kylith wrote: »

The thing about your 'run over' analogy is that you can be bruised at 10mph or dead at 60mph, whereas if you get raped it doesn't matter if he beats you or not, you're still raped - the outcome is the same regardless of the amount of force used. You can't say someone was 'only a bit raped' because they weren't beaten to a pulp. Yes, there are levels of violence, but it doesn't detract from the trauma of the experience.

You can be raped and beaten to an inch of your life or you can be raped without massive physical trauma. My analogy is fine. And again, with regard to rape occurring and being traumatic:

That's not in contention. The degree of violence involved is what the judge commented on. What's difficult about that.

SeanW

kylith wrote: »

Yes, there are levels of violence, but it doesn't detract from the trauma of the experience.

I don't think the judge said that it "detracted" just that there were levels of violence.

That would seem to be self-evident.

osarusan

kylith wrote: »

You can't say someone was 'only a bit raped' because they weren't beaten to a pulp.

Nobody has said that in this thread, although I get the impression some posters actually hope somebody will say it.

ScumLord

This is a non issue, a judge says something insensitive. They all do that. I'm sure the interviewer made sure the comments were framed in the worst possible light then threw it in front of a few rights groups so they could start barking for extra attention and it will die out with the usual raft of ignorant facebook comments.

[QUOTE=Chocolate Lions;92250999]You can be raped and beaten to an inch of your life or you can be raped without massive physical trauma. My analogy is fine. And again, with regard to rape occurring and being traumatic:

That's not in contention. The degree of violence involved is what the judge commented on. What's difficult about that.[/QUOTE]


Those are additional acts of violence.

The suspect could surely be charged with rape and grievous bodily harm - or whatever the appropriate charge would be. It would be preferable to acknowledge other violence instead of talking about degrees of rape itself.

The impact of rape is the same.
The impact of other acts of violence should be dealt with alongside but separately to charges of rape imo.

Jaguarpicante

Candie wrote: »

No one said it, yet. When you say some are worse than others, it can be interpreted that way by anyone who has an interest in minimising the impact of rape. Like those convicted of it.

Ok so you are refuting a point that nobody made. I can do that as well.

Just because the sun is yellow doesn't mean dolphins eat cheeseburgers.

jank

jank wrote: »

I don't agree. This is Ireland, so where the victim is from should have no bearing on the result. Swap compensation for any of corporal punishment, castration, capital punishment which may also be acceptable pieces of justice in other countries. Irish law does not recognise these.

Of course Ireland doesn't recognise those factors, nobody is disputing that. I was putting the womans expectations into her own context, since the retired Justice put his own interpretation on it. Nothing wrong with looking at both sides.

Incidentally, I don't think the Justice set out to be insensitive or to cause controversy, but I think his remarks can be seen as ambiguous and were poorly phrased and thought out.

If he'd said he's support a charge of aggravated rape so that violence in addition to and during rape can be reflected in the charge, I'd be totally behind him.

Chocolate Lions

Candie wrote: »

Those are additional acts of violence.

The suspect could surely be charged with rape and grievous bodily harm - or whatever the appropriate charge would be. It would be preferable to acknowledge other violence instead of talking about degrees of rape itself.

The impact of rape is the same.
The impact of other acts of violence should be dealt with alongside but separately to charges of rape imo.

Nobody is talking about degrees of rape. The judge isn't either. I have no idea why anyone keeps using the word degrees.

Rapists can get more than one charge. For example, a violent rape could mean charges of aggravated sexual assault and assault causing harm. That already happens.

Saying the impact of rape is the same regardless of what happened is possibly insensitive. If someone is violently assaulted and receives a lot of harm their trauma and recovery could be much worse. The act of rape itself can be more or less violent. There isn't some theoretical separation, so I think that's a dodgy thing to say. Every assault needs its own considerations. Blanket statements aren't great help.

(What a thing to end up talking about on a Thursday afternoon.)

Autonomous Cowherd

Candie wrote: »

Those are additional acts of violence.

The suspect could surely be charged with rape and grievous bodily harm - or whatever the appropriate charge would be. It would be preferable to acknowledge other violence instead of talking about degrees of rape itself.

The impact of rape is the same.
The impact of other acts of violence should be dealt with alongside but separately to charges of rape imo.

I am hesitant to say this, but as a woman i would say that there are different degrees of rape. I believe the crime should have different categories. Some people are left with life-altering injuries to their reproductive system owing to the savage nature of an assault that might include implements. To be ripped with some implement in such a manner as might necessitate reconstructive surgery or the like should be considered a further degree of a crime, and, in my opinion, would involve a considerable degree of more grievous suffering for the victim. Though yes, both are raped and both have suffered and both perpetrators must be held accountable.

if one wishes to compare it to murder, although such things are incomparable, a person might be charged who belts someone once who then falls over hits their head and dies, and a person might be charged with murder if they slowly and agonisingly torture someone to death. The result is the same, both victims murdered, but the degree of suffering in the second case is undeniably larger and will be taken into account in sentencing.

In summary, though all rape is evidently heinous, there aught to be statuatory degrees of rape according to the level of violence meted out. In my opinion.

Chocolate Lions

Chocolate Lions wrote: »

Nobody is talking about degrees of rape. The judge isn't either. I have no idea why anyone keeps using the word degrees.

Rapists can get more than one charge. For example, a violent rape could mean charges of aggravated sexual assault and assault causing harm. That already happens.

Saying the impact of rape is the same regardless of what happened is possibly insensitive. If someone is violently assaulted and receives a lot of harm their trauma and recovery could be much worse. The act of rape itself can be more or less violent. There isn't some theoretical separation, so I think that's a dodgy thing to say. Every assault needs its own considerations. Blanket statements aren't great help.

(What a thing to end up talking about on a Thursday afternoon.)

Well the impact of a punch to the jaw is the same in isolation, and the impact of rape is 'the same' in isolation, which is why I think other acts of violence shouldn't be used to define how violent a rape is. A rape is violent, a punch is violent too, but it's a series of crimes rather than all 'just' rape. Not sure how much sense that sounds like it's made, but it makes sense in my tired head.

eyescreamcone

How can some of you back this judge up when he said that some rapes are less violent than others.

He is 100% wrong wrong wrong!!!

Clearly, some rapes are MORE violent than others!!!

Autonomous Cowherd

eyescreamcone wrote: »

How can some of you back this judge up when he said that some rapes are less violent than others.

He is 100% wrong wrong wrong!!!

Clearly, some rapes are MORE violent than others!!!

Yes. That is a better way of putting it.

Chocolate Lions

Candie wrote: »

Well the impact of a punch to the jaw is the same in isolation, and the impact of rape is 'the same' in isolation, which is why I think other acts of violence shouldn't be used to define how violent a rape is. A rape is violent, a punch is violent too, but it's a series of crimes rather than all 'just' rape. Not sure how much sense that sounds like it's made, but it makes sense in my tired head.

Not a huge amount, sorry. I half get what you're trying to say but then I don't understand that you're disagreeing with me.

Chocolate Lions

Chocolate Lions wrote: »

Not a huge amount, sorry. I half get what you're trying to say but then I don't understand that you're disagreeing with me.

When the judge talks about rapes being more violent (or less), he runs the risk of making some sound less serious than others but of course all rapes are serious. Obviously when other acts of violence are committed they also have an impact and it may be cumulative, but the impact of rape is the same.

Thats why aggravated rape should be an option, rather than have one charge encompassing the whole scale - no victim should be made feel her suffering is at the lower end of any scale because she wasn't beaten up or stabbed.

I know I'm still not getting it out right.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

The thing about your 'run over' analogy is that you can be bruised at 10mph or dead at 60mph, whereas if you get raped it doesn't matter if he beats you or not, you're still raped - the outcome is the same regardless of the amount of force used. You can't say someone was 'only a bit raped' because they weren't beaten to a pulp. Yes, there are levels of violence, but it doesn't detract from the trauma of the experience.

Where does statutory rape fit into all this?

FullblownRose

I don't know the context and I'm struggling to understand that.
I can't imagine how such a remark is appropriate for a judge to make..I would have thought that complete gravitas should be evident in a judges attitude rather than for him to be seen to be comparing the level of violence involved.

It might be factually correct, but what purpose did it serve for him to say it other than to undermine the seriousness of 'a' case?

FullblownRose

Tbh its a dreadful system to have to go through for a victim as it is, and it's not encouraging to read about irreverent, disrespectful articles like that who are the reason for the poor outcome for rape victims who take their case to court.

foggy_lad

Maximiliano Shaggy Watermelon wrote: »

During an interview on Monday recently retired Judge Barry White said some rapes are ‘less violent’ than others, and also commented on one case, although he did not name the victims, saying "the victim seemed to have a considerable interest in compensation for the offence".

What is honestly wrong with what he said? His assertion that some rapes are 'less violent' than others is an irrefutable fact, there are always more or less violent attacks when it comes to violent crimes, it's undeniable. His comments on the woman desperately seeking compensation is simply what he believed after hearing the case, why is he being chastised for speaking his mind?

I don't get it.

The problem is that there are two different crimes, one being a rape which is someone forcing you to have sex without your consent and the other crime which often goes hand in hand with rape is violent assault.

Thank god he is not a judge anymore.

conorh91

RDM_83 again wrote: »

How can the swedes who are constantly held up as being the pinnacle of social enlightenment have "degrees" of rape in their legal system?

Candie wrote: »

If he'd said he's support a charge of aggravated rape so that violence in addition to and during rape can be reflected in the charge, I'd be totally behind him.

Courts already do take violence against the victim of rape into account.

But there are so many variable factors in rape cases—initial consent; remorse and early admission; age difference and relationship; wishes of the rape victim; effects on the victim; whether in the home or in the street; and indeed the use of violence—that it would be impossible for the Government to legislate for every aggravating or mitigating factor at sentencing.

I think judges and retired judges should just never speak to the media, because for people who should be well capable of showing sensitivity, they have an uncanny knack for offending everyone.

Victor

jank wrote: »

I don't agree. This is Ireland, so where the victim is from should have no bearing on the result. Swap compensation for any of corporal punishment, castration, capital punishment which may also be acceptable pieces of justice in other countries. Irish law does not recognise these.

1. A victim is entitled to sue a criminal for damages.
2. Sometimes, criminals do offer compensation to demonstrate remorse.

Shakespeare's Sister

I don't know about the differences in rape thing - I guess maybe there's a grain of truth to it, even though rape is rape.
The thing about looking for compensation though - I find something particularly callous and sneering about this type of observation. It reminds me of when abuse victims come forward and the "Hmmm... why only now?" mob start. The same was said about Savita Halappanavar's widower. What sort of mind works that way?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's a very taboo thing to talk about, basically. But it should be pretty obvious that a case involving someone being threatened with a knife or even just being forced to have sex against their will, and a case involving two minors having consensual sex or two drunk people who can't remember what they did for example are not the same thing.
The fact that it's impossible to have a public discussion about that without the person who dares to question the current paradigm being viciously attacked and silenced is pretty pathetic.

Not sure anyone would say sex between two minors is the same thing as someone being forced to have sex against their will?
The drunk one - I appreciate that's a more grey area in some situations but if someone is drunk yet still able to engage sexually and the other person is so drunk that they're not conscious, then it's cut and dry really.

jank wrote: »

My rights don't end where your feelings begin.

People who say the above - only apply it to stuff they agree with, and would have no issue with someone being offended about e.g. anti catholic remarks.
Similar to the "What about free speech?!" drool. You know it's usually coming from people who want the free speech to say vile things, but have no issue with silencing of free speech in relation to things they disagree with. :pac:

Grayson

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

I don't know about the differences in rape thing - I guess maybe there's a grain of truth to it, even though rape is rape.

There are murders which can be described as better or worse than each other. It doesn't mean the person is any less dead, it just means that there was more suffering involved.

wretcheddomain

floggg wrote: »

Some murders are more violent than others. Doesn't really make might difference - it's still murder which ever way you do it.

The problem with comments like that is that it gives rise to the impression that there are "degrees" of rape. The implication seems to be that a less violent rape is somehow less deplorable or something.

Why else make the statement - I've never heard a judge or anybody else make the equivalent statement re murder.

There are no such degrees of rape, and the crime is the same regardless of whether it's psychological coercion or violent force used.

I disagree.

The method of murder makes a huge difference. Evidently, a murder which seeks to extract as much pain from a victim (say from torture, amputation, followed by beheading), is much worse than a murder that utilizes controlled anaesthesia. Yes - the end result is the same, but this doesn't mean you can equivocate the method, intent, and process that leads to the murder itself.

Furthermore, there are no "degrees of rape", rather, all rape is the same in that violation always occurs. However, many of these crimes have an 'additional layer' of violence which adds an additional layer of horror to the crime being committed. The violence doesn't make the rape worse for the victim, as rape is the same for all victims whether or not there is violence. But, victims of rape with additional violence evidently suffer a different form of trauma, if not supplementary, to that of the trauma from rape.

I guess the best analogy is to think of two people being abused. One is verbally abused while a second is verbally abused as well as physically attacked. There are two types of trauma here: the verbal abuse and the physical attack; separate and distinct, but to the victim of both, they'll evidently suffer both traumas as opposed to the person who suffered one (the verbal). Does this devalue the verbal abuse? Not at all, as both have suffered it to the same extent and we can criminalise the perpetrator accordingly. However, we mustn't avoid the inevitable conclusion that the person who suffered the physical attack received a different, distinct, and supplementary form of trauma.

caolfx

Candie wrote: »

Some rapes are more violent than others, particularly those where force, threats, injury and multiple assaults are present. It doesn't mean that some victims are a little bit raped, and some are very raped or that ALL rape isn't violence, even if no injury other than the rape occurs. .

I don't think anyone said it was 'less rape'.

So essentially, you agree with him on that point.

Potential-Monke

Victor wrote: »

1. A victim is entitled to sue a criminal for damages.
2. Sometimes, criminals do offer compensation to demonstrate remorse.

You're right, people are entitled to sue. However, this is a civil matter and does not/should not be part of criminal proceedings. Now, if the suspect wishes to give money as a gesture remorse, and the victim is happy to accept that in lieu of a sentence, so be it. That's an agreement between the two parties which could have an effect on proceedings, but overall (and not just in rape cases), compensation should not be anywhere involved in criminal cases. The job of a Criminal Court is to find culpability beyond a reasonable doubt, not to decide how much someone should get because they were [insert crime here].

So the Judges comments (on what i've seen in this thread, perhaps someone could link the article) are understandable, in my opinion. Unless you're involved in criminal cases where there's allegations of rape, you don't see how many cases of rape get to court only to be found out that the allegation was false. Very few of these cases get reported because of the negative impact it would have on genuine victims coming forward.

A judge will see this a lot more than anyone else, and that's possibly where his comments were coming from, that this victims insistence of compensation could have been an indicator of not-false-but-possibly-exaggerated allegation in order to score some money. I'm pretty sure the last thing on a victims mind is how much they're going to get from their perpetrator, and would much prefer to see them do a bit of time.

Now, don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that all allegations made by rape victims are false, and it's an extremely hard process for a victim to go through, and that each case should be dealt with sensitively and properly. And maybe it's my experience with criminal law which makes me doubt, but i've seen false allegations made, i've seen the effect it has on the "perpetrator", and experience will give you that second question about everything. Beyond reasonable doubt makes you question everything, even the most straight forward cases, because even if you believe that something 100% happens, you need to look at it from the other side to ensure that you won't be hoodwinked by something you overlooked, be it evidence or a technicality.

Again, i don't want to be seen as playing down any case of rape or sexual assault, but I'd be of the opinion that a Judge has way more experience of dealing with these cases than anyone else, and his comment could have been based on experience. No one will ever know except him.

Potatoeman

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's a very taboo thing to talk about, basically. But it should be pretty obvious that a case involving someone being threatened with a knife or even just being forced to have sex against their will, and a case involving two minors having consensual sex or two drunk people who can't remember what they did for example are not the same thing.
The fact that it's impossible to have a public discussion about that without the person who dares to question the current paradigm being viciously attacked and silenced is pretty pathetic.

The drunk one can be odd. Two people get drunk neither remember having sex but the guy can be charged with rape. It seems to make the responsibility one sided.

0byme75341jo28

Potatoeman wrote: »

The drunk one can be odd. Two people get drunk neither remember having sex but the guy can be charged with rape. It seems to make the responsibility one sided.

Is it really that cut and dry though? As in, could a woman just have sex with a man whilst both are drunk, wake up the next morning and see him beside her, and then say he raped her even though she herself couldn't remember that the intercourse ever actually happened? Sounds ridiculous.

Potatoeman

Maximiliano Shaggy Watermelon wrote: »

Is it really that cut and dry though? As in, could a woman just have sex with a man whilst both are drunk, wake up the next morning and see him beside her, and then say he raped her even though she herself couldn't remember that the intercourse ever actually happened? Sounds ridiculous.

In some countries. I have heard in the states more college guys are avoiding the hookup culture as they can be kicked out of college if accused.

jill_valentine

Potatoeman wrote: »

In some countries. I have heard in the states more college guys are avoiding the hookup culture as they can be kicked out of college if accused.

And then on the flipside, you've got Steubenville, where no amount of evidence seemed enough.

0byme75341jo28

Chamber511 wrote: »

Yep ridiculous, equally she could have raped him.

It makes no sense though.

Why would it be anyone's fault? They both made the decision to get absolutely shitfaced, and happened to have sex with each other. I honestly don't get why that would constitute a rape charge. I'm gonna stop now before I go and blame the victim....